util_tls_inspect

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only lists inspected fields without disclosing behavioral traits like network requests, permissions, or side effects. It does not describe if the tool performs live network lookups or uses cached data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key inspection aspects (issuer, subject, SANs, expiry) and the purpose (trust, renewal risk). No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema is absent, and the description does not mention return values or format. For a tool that likely returns structured certificate data, this is a significant gap. Combined with missing parameter guidance, the description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has a single parameter 'arguments' with additionalProperties: true and no description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description offers no explanation of what the parameter expects (e.g., a domain name, URL, or certificate file), leaving the agent without necessary context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it inspects TLS certificate details (issuer, subject, SANs, expiry) for trust and renewal risk, using a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling inspection tools like util_dns_lookup or util_http_headers_inspect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as util_domain_trust_report or other inspection utilities. There is no mention of prerequisites or appropriate contexts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.